Is it the police’s role to respond to mental health incidents? Right Care Right Person two years on

In July 2023, the Home Office published its National Partnership Agreement: Right Care, Right Person (RCRP)

This is an agreement between policing, health and other relevant partners that sets out the principles around the Right Care, Right Person approach which aims to ensure that individuals in mental health crisis are seen by the right professional.

Who signed up to the agreement?

• Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)
• Home office
• NHS England
• National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC)
• Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC)
• College of Policing,

How has RCRP impacted upon public services since implementation in 2023?

Early data shows a significant drop in police involvement in mental health callouts but the NHS has reported increased pressure and longer wait times for crisis support.

Impact on the police

Section 136 of the Mental Health Act allows a police officer to take a person from a public place to a “place of safety” if the officer believes the person is mentally unwell, and they appear to be in immediate need of care or control (e.g. at risk of harming themselves or others). The place of safety is usually a hospital or mental health facility. Section 136 is not used lightly by the police as they are withdrawing an individual’s liberty by detaining them. 
Since the implementation of RCRP, there is a reported 10%  reduction nationally in section 136 detentions—from 34,685 in 2022‑23 to 31,213 in 2023‑24. 

In London, the Metropolitan Police saw a 27% fall in section 136 detentions, dropping from 6,093 (2022‑23) to 4,475 (2023‑24). This, in turn, has allowed the Met to reclaim approximately 34,000 officer-hours per month, as a result of there being around 6,000 fewer health-related deployments each month.

Impact on health services

According to a DHSC survey, health services in many areas are struggling to cope with increased post-RCRP demand: 62% of integrated care boards and 40% of councils reported  issues mainly cantering on cost and funding.

The families of people who have died by suicide in the care of Norfolk and Suffolk mental health services called for a halt on the implementation of RCRP in these areas whilst the health services are improved.

How has RCRP impacted upon the landscape of inquests?

Since its introduction, coroners in several inquests have explicitly raised concerns about how RCRP may have contributed to gaps in care, particularly when police withdrew from mental health emergencies and health services could not fully fill the void. In recent inquests where this gap was a relevant factor in the death, coroners have also exercised their power to issue Prevention of Future Death Reports (PFD) to highlight the issue and their view that action should be taken to prevent similar deaths in the future. The below extracts from two recent key PFDs illustrate the concern:

May 2025 Inquest, PFD from HMAC Merchant to West Yorkshire Police:

In the course of the evidence, it became apparent the police had introduced RCRP in September 2023. RCRP is a police initiative arising out of a national agreement but to be implemented by individual police forces. Little or no consultation with other agencies had taken place prior to the implementation of RCRP in September 2023.Whilst I heard evidence that meetings with other agencies now do take place, the specifics of this case and the broader issues it raises have not been discussed nor is there any understanding / agreement in place as to how such a situation would now be addressed. As much as the court was advised that if a similar situation arose today, there may be a discussion between operational managers in the respective police and ambulance call centres, but that (sic) this would be reliant upon the matter being brought to the attention of those respective managers by the call taker. The evidence from the RCRP lead at the ambulance service indicated the scenario that arose with the deceased was not an isolated example. As such there appears to be a lacuna in how emergency services will respond to such a situation when it was accepted this was a call expressing concern for an individual’s welfare.

May 2025 Inquest, PFD from HMAC Sutton to Durham Constabulary

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. –

(1) During the 16:44 call, by following the “Right Care, Right Person” procedure there was a refusal to the request that the police attend, even when a family member was expressing the view that there was a real and immediate risk to life.

(2) During the 16:44 call the “Right Care, Right Person” advice to contact mental health services appears to have disregarded the fact that the mental health crisis team do not have the power to enter locked premises and so would require police attendance to facilitate entry to the premises.

(3) During the 16:57 call there was no decision for police to attend, even though this was the third caller (and second professional caller) that had expressed serious concerns about the Deceased.

(4) Although there is a procedure in place to have a negative “Right Care, Right Person” decision reviewed by a supervisor, this causes additional delay in circumstances when attendance could be extremely time-sensitive.

Conclusion

From early interpretation it would seem that whilst RCRP is of significant benefit to the police in reducing s136 detentions and deployments, coroners do not consider that the NHS, ambulance and mental health services are ready to fill the gap and as such delays or lack of intervention could lead to preventable deaths. It will be interesting to follow how use of the policy develops and we shall keep you updated in this respect.